The Oregonian yesterday had a brief piece on a new bike/ped bridge that will open in a few weeks, crossing the Tualatin river.
As a member of TPAC (Metro’s Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee), I had a chance to score and recommend this project as part of the State “Transportation Enhancements” competitive process.
I feel a tinge of gratification watching it turn into reality. Often the results of time spent as a citizen rep in government planning processes are esoteric and very long term. It’s nice to see this one done.
I also learned something from the article that I didn’t know: when this bridge was originally conceived twenty-plus years ago, it was as an auto bridge!
22 responses to “Tualatin Bike/Ped Bridge: Medium-Term Gratification”
While I am happy to see a pedestrian trail linking THREE parks (Tualatin Community Park, Durham City Park, Tigard’s Cook Park), I cannot stop from thinking that Tualatin despirately needs another way north, and that a vehicle bridge located to the west of the railroad tracks would perfectly link up Hall Blvd. with Tualatin Road/Boones Ferry Road. Such a bridge would relieve considerable pressure off of the existing Boones Ferry Road bridge, and possibly eliminate some of the local traffic that is forced onto I-5 only to travel a short distance within Tualatin or Tigard.
It would also provide a second inlet for traffic to Cook Park, which today must use a single road (with a considerable grade); which is not good for the Festival of Balloons or other major events at the park.
Another, older article:
http://www.tigardtimes.com/news/story.php?story_id=115523809886616600
Instead of another auto bridge, I would prefer to see some real transit options in Tualatin and the SW metro area. And no, I do not consider the Washington County Commuter rail to be a real transit option.
Transit in Tualatin / Lake Oswego areas is almost non-existant.
Well, if an auto bridge were built along the OE to connect Boones Ferry/Tualatin Road with Hall Blvd., the 76 bus would have a straight shot from downtown Tigard to downtown Tualatin.
Then if TriMet would get off its butt, downtown Tualatin could have a transit center all its own with busses to King City (via Tualatin Road), Sherwood (via Tualatin-Sherwood Road), Wilsonville (via Boones Ferry Road), and a local route that follows Martinazzi and Grahams Ferry Road; another that travels east and serves the hospital, and another that forms a shuttle route to Bridgeport Village.
Instead, we have spent close to $3 million on a bridge. Did you know that $3 million could buy TEN transit busses?
Did you know that $3 million could buy TEN transit busses?
Yes, but you’d also have to come up with $1,000,000+ per year to pay the staff necessary to operate them, plus fuel costs, plus maintenance, plus replace the buses in about 12 years. (Say 4X in 50 years = $12 million in capital costs alone.)
The bridge will last considerably longer, and, assuming a life cycle of 50 years, plus a $million or so for maintenance, patrolling, bond interest (if applicable), etc., the bridge costs less than $80,000 per year.
You can’t compare fixed asset capital costs to the costs of operating a service. I’m all for more transit service for the Tualatin area, but this bridge didn’t exactly rob anybody of the kind of bus service you are proposing.
– Bob R.
If it costs $1,000,000 to staff 3 buses, we are paying the bus drivers way too much money!
Bus driver; requires no secondary education, a clean drivers license, and minimal employer training.
I would think their pay would cap at $13/hour. I know most drivers are part time (meaning no benefits, unless public employees are “special”). Staffing a bus 20 hours a day shouldn’t cost more then 110k a year.
I understand that Tualitan seems to need more transportation options. Here is what I struggle with: it was designed on purpose as an autocentric community. It was designed on purpose with less density that would support other forms of transportation. Even websites that talk about living there note this. People (typically) move there by choice. Homes are not considerably cheaper there than other areas with better transportation connections. At what point does personal responsibilty come into play? Should you be able to have your cake and eat it too? (even if it’s not a piece of cake I would want).
Hawthorne,
Tualatin is within the TriMet service boundary. All property owners within the TriMet district pay property tax (for debt repayment) and all employers within the TriMet district (including self-employed) pay payroll tax.
Therefore, those who “choose” to live in Tualatin are also “choosing” to pay the myriad of TriMet imposed taxes, just as if they were in Beaverton, Hillsboro, Portland, Gresham, Milwaukie, Oregon City, etc.
Therefore, TriMet has a responsibility to provide service just the same as the other communities, or TriMet needs to declare that they have no interest in serving the community – and stop taxing us.
The only other option would be for the city of Tualatin to have an initiative to vote TriMet out, which is what Wilsonville, Canby, Molalla, and Sandy have all done. Quite frankly, that particular idea resonates well with me.
On the other hand, how is Streetcar being funded? Why, although it is a CITY OF PORTLAND project, TriMet (including us smucks in Tualatin) are contributing to its operating costs. Is that fair that the City of Portland has essentially dumped their project on us?
Admittedly, the city of Tualatin has not kept up with transportation needs (the major west-east artery is a county road; the city has only in recent years taken over responsibility for the primary west-east state highway (Tualatin Road/Nyberg Street/Borland Road, formerly Oregon Highway 212) and the secondary north-south state highway (Boones Ferry Road). And although the City has a responsibility to manage its own affairs, TriMet has interjected itself as the transit provider responsible for all public transit within its boundaries (which includes all of Tualatin) (just as the city does not have its own fire department, it relies on Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue).
So are you suggesting that Tualatin residents should pay more in taxes and receive less benefit from it?
Erik,
You stated: Therefore, those who “choose” to live in Tualatin are also “choosing” to pay the myriad of TriMet imposed taxes, just as if they were in Beaverton, Hillsboro, Portland, Gresham, Milwaukie, Oregon City, etc.
True. But you also said:
“So are you suggesting that Tualatin residents should pay more in taxes and receive less benefit from it?”
Not at all.
Because your density is lower, you are actually not paying more. It would seem to me (without seeing the figures, and I would love to see them) that you get what you pay for. If you live in a denser community, you get a higher level of TriMet service. Not just because you can pay for it, but because the density supports that. If you choose to live in a less dense community you get less service based upon that density.
You certainly have the option of voting TriMet out and establishing your own level of service. Good on you- and I would be surprised to learn that you could get a higher level of service pay less.
What I wonder is if a place like Tualitan that might not currently have the demand pay more to get a greater level of service on the premise that this investment would pay off in greater ridership/changed housing patterns…that would in the end pay for themselves.
Just a though.
I did a bit of number crunching, to compare TriMet’s population to its bus service.
If TriMet were to serve each of its communities equally based upon population (or, if TriMet were to dissolve and distribute its entire fleet out), this is what it would look like:
Beaverton – 46 busses, 18 LIFT busses, 11 LRVs
Cornelius – 6 busses, 2 LIFT busses
Damascus – 5 busses, 2 LIFT busses
Durham – 1 bus
Estacada – 1 bus, 1 LIFT bus
Fairview – 5 busses, 2 LIFT busses
Forest Grove – 11 busses, 4 LIFT busses
Gladstone – 7 busses, 3 LIFT busses
Gresham – 53 busses, 21 LIFT busses, 12 LRVs
Hillsboro – 46 busses, 18 LIFT busses, 11 LRVs
Johnson City – 0
King City – 1 bus
Lake Oswego – 20 busses, 8 LIFT busses
Maywood Park – 0
Milwaukie – 11 busses, 4 LIFT busses
Oregon City – 16 busses, 6 LIFT busses
Portland – 305 busses, 118 LIFT busses, 71 LRVs
Rivergrove – 0
Sherwood – 9 busses, 3 LIFT busses
Tigard – 25 busses, 10 LIFT busses
Troutdale – 8 busses, 3 LIFT busses
Tualatin – 14 busses, 5 LIFT busses
West Linn – 13 busses, 5 LIFT busses
Wood Village – 2 busses, 1 LIFT bus
I think I can say crystal clear that Tualatin does not have the equivalent of 14 busses serving the city. The 96 only requires 5 busses, and there are only 2 76 busses in Tualatin. Where are the other 7 busses?
Erik,
This is really helpful (and quick!) work. I think that it is data, in the end, that will help to drive changes. You have posted the “what should be” based upon population. Do you have access to what current deployment is?
Thanks!
If it costs $1,000,000 to staff 3 buses, we are paying the bus drivers way too much money!
Please re-read the original comment – the numbers were based on 10 buses, not 3.
Buses run 7 days a week, about 16 hours a day (two regular shifts, plus weekend shifts), so for 10 buses you’d have the equivalent of about 24+ full-time employees, plus administrative and supervisory costs, a percentage applied to backup/replacement employees, health insurance, retirement, other benefits. The cost of those employees, if you include all that goes with employment, will exceed $50k per year, thus the figure is well over $1,000,000.
Staffing a bus 20 hours a day shouldn’t cost more then 110k a year.
You just said it yourself. Take 10 buses, $110K per year, and you get $1,100,000.
– Bob R.
But would people use those 14 busses?
I mean I would, but I live in Portland, I just work in Lake Oswego and would need to bus through Tualatin from time to time…
But it is not the population nor the density that is the problem. It is whether or not the population will use the transit.
People in the suburbs don’t like to ride busses. Part of it is because of the lack of service, but part of it is bceause they are just not transit oriented people who live there…
What I see as the major problem is that there is NO cross town support. Seriously, all the busses go in and out of downtown. There is very little support to get from, say, Lake Oswego, to say, Sunset transit center in less than two hours. We need some bus lines that “mimic” single vehicle use patterns. Like maybe one line that runs up and down 217 connecting Sunset Transit center, Washington Square, Tigard transit center, Tualatin transit center, Lake Oswego transit center.
Or something. Heck, I am just a commentor on a blog. :)
Right now, at this very moment, #76/78 has 15 minute headways between Beaverton TC and Wash. Sq./Tigard TC. Each branch has 30 minute headways between Tigard TC and Tualitan/Lake Oswego TC’s.
Also, Trimet Trip Planner shows 69 minute travel time between Lake Oswego TC and Sunset TC.
Not too good, but then again not too bad, either.
up and down 217 connecting Sunset Transit center, Washington Square, Tigard transit center, Tualatin transit center
As has been mentioned here before, commuter rail, along with MAX, will do that. Yes, its planned to be rush-hour only, BUT the 76 will also be upgraded to Frequent Service along with it, benefiting riders at all times.
http://www.trimet.org/bus/frequentservice.htm
Whether people will use transit or not…
Wilsonville, prior to SMART, had a single bus that went north-south. Apparently despite a widely dispersed population and employment base, its transit system is growing.
In today’s world, why would anyone ride TriMet in Tualatin – in my case, to get to the park-and-ride I have to drive THROUGH the Tualatin Commons. If I’m driving to Portland, the nearest park and ride is the Tigard 74th Avenue/Cinemas lot – if I’m driving that far, I might as well just stay in the car the remaining six miles downtown if the park-and-ride lot is six miles away from my home.
On the other hand, if we provide transit and if we’re wrong and transit goes away, at least we can look back and say “well we had it, and nobody rode it”. With busses, the actual vehicles can be re-deployed to other locations, unlike rail improvements (if nobody rides Beaverton-Wilsonville Commuter Rail, only the vehicles can be re-deployed, the four vehicles are only $10M of the $130M project. The other $120M is sunk.)
True, the $1.1 million bike bridge doesn’t require substantial operating costs, but then again where does that $1.1M come from? It surely isn’t coming from bicyclists who are paying for bikeway improvements, is it? Regardless I still support the project because it does fill a missing gap; however it would be more beneficial for the bridge to have been a roadway bridge with bike lanes (or an adjacent bike path).
Wilsonville, prior to SMART, had a single bus that went north-south. Apparently despite a widely dispersed population and employment base, its transit system is growing.
Wilsonville has a huge employment base that pays transit taxes and it serves a very small area. It appears from its web site that it provides service only six days per week with no direct service to downtown Portland, connecting to Trimet at the Barbur transit center during the week and Tualatin on Saturdays. It does provide service to Salem.
There is no doubt that improving service would improve ridership, but if you expand service one place you have to cut service to someone else.
if nobody rides Beaverton-Wilsonville Commuter Rail, only the vehicles can be re-deployed,
You can’t redeploy the pedestrian facilities that are required to support any transit, including buses. And the private investment that is made that depends on transit is sunk in either case as well. So the fact that it isn’t dependent on which way the political winds are blowing is one of the advantages of rail transit.
And the reality is that people will ride commuter rail just as they ride MAX. You will be hard pressed to find a rail-based transit investment in the last 30 years that has failed to attract riders. The more likely reason for commuter rail problems is that it won’t be able to handle the demand and they’ll have to “toll” it to relieve congestion.
You will be hard pressed to find a rail-based transit investment in the last 30 years that has failed to attract riders.
Two:
Syracuse (New York) On-Track, which has gone to a part-week schedule, has eliminated its expansion plans, and is barely scraping by.
Champlain (Vermont) Flyer. Discontinued.
And both of those are located in the “densely populated” northeast where commuter rail lines have existed for decades and simply went from private to public ownership, instead of abandonment by the private sector, and had to be reconstructed by the public.
You can’t redeploy the pedestrian facilities that are required to support any transit, including buses. And the private investment that is made that depends on transit is sunk in either case as well. So the fact that it isn’t dependent on which way the political winds are blowing is one of the advantages of rail transit.
How does this statement make any sense? “Pedestrian facilities that are required to support any transit…” clearly shows no bias between bus and rail solutions; however a rail solution requires STATIONS that without passenger service would have no use (Don’t believe me? Go to McMinnville sometime; that train station that stands there was built specificly for passenger trains. The only reason it has a use today is that the railroad tore down the freight house and office two blocks away, and moved the remaining employee there.)
TriMet has shown that bus shelters can be removed and relocated; so the cost that is sunk is of concrete. Minor. And that’s assuming that said facilities have been constructed – many bus stops are nothing more than an eight-foot piece of metal pipe, and a piece of sheet metal that measures 12 inches by 18 inches. In other words, a bus stop sign. Costs about $50.
If B-W Commuter Rail sinks (see above post) – only $10M of the cost can be somehow recouped. The land, now owned by TriMet, would have little value to an governmental entity, and TriMet can’t earn “rent” because Union Pacific has a permanent non-revocable freight easement. The platforms have no other purpose and would be sunk. Obiviously since the freight railroad has the permanent easement it has no reason to purchase the land back, so now TriMet is effectively owning land for the sole benefit of a freight railroad.
On a hypothetical basis, TriMet could start a bus line from Tualatin to Sherwood, requiring one bus ($300,000, assuming that a bus had to be purchased specifically for the route), 40 bus stops ($50 each)…the layover sites in Sherwood and Tualatin already exist. Total cost? $302,000.
To argue that “to add service somewhere requires service to be eliminated elsewhere…” Well, exactly what is getting cut in order to fund Beaverton-Wilsonville Commuter Rail? Oh, wait, I forgot. TriMet has killed its capital budget, can’t afford new busses, and has reduced service frequencies. It’s also about a year behind on its “total transit plan”. Guess transit is successful in Portland, as long as you’re willing to drive to a park and ride lot…so much for “congestion relief”. I thought the idea was to get people OUT of their cars…
Champlain (Vermont) Flyer. Discontinued.
Champlain is in rural Vermont, the Flyer was a commuter rail demonstration project. It looks like the state legislature cut the budget for rail before the demonstration project was even completed. It does not appear there was any significant “investment” in the project, just operating costs to use existing facilities.
Syracuse (New York) On-Track, which has gone to a part-week schedule, has eliminated its expansion plans, and is barely scraping by.
According to wikipedia, the Syracuse “Ontrack” system is being extended with a new bridge to connect it to the regional transit center. The track and platforms for the extension are already in place. It also says Syracuse is the smallest city in the country with local rail service.
Given those two examples are the “failures”, it looks like rail has been a pretty good investment in general.
How does this statement make any sense?
How does it not? Any transit requires huge investments, both public and private, in pedestrian facilities. Its much harder to get those investments when the bus service, unlike rail, can be easily moved. Moreover what private business people see clearly is that rail gets higher ridership, making the return on their investments higher.
If B-W Commuter Rail sinks
There is no reason to think it will and it would be foolish to make any investments planning for failure.
Well, exactly what is getting cut in order to fund Beaverton-Wilsonville Commuter Rail?
Trimet isn’t building the Washington County Commuter rail line – it was Washington County that came up with the idea. And I believe one of the issues was getting an operating agreement with Trimet that wouldn’t require it to cut other service.
“I’m looking forward to the grand opening and riding my bike across the bridge,” said Mayor Craig Dirksen. “But I’ll have to go buy a bike.
From the Tigard Times article listed above, and I think that describes the area this bridge is located quite well. It’ll be nice to have, but at quite a high price.
I live in Tualatin and I’m always surprised how few bikes there are on the roads. Most that I do see are out on weekends, not commuting hours. I’m not sure what the transportation rewards of this will be.
Trimet isn’t building the Washington County Commuter rail line – it was Washington County that came up with the idea. And I believe one of the issues was getting an operating agreement with Trimet that wouldn’t require it to cut other service.
Then why is TriMet spending $15.56M in funding to build it, whereas Washington County and the cities are only spending $7.75?????
(Source: http://www.trimet.org/commuterrail/project.htm)
With regards to your other points:
So what if the Champlain Flyer is a rural service? It was still a commuter line, and it’s still not operating. Are you telling me that every station was already in existance? Are you telling me that every railcar and locomotive was already in existence?
Syracuse On-Track’s expansion is permanently on hold; it was to have been built years ago. On a positive note, it uses Budd RDCs, which are a fraction of the cost of the vehicles that TriMet is purchasing.
I live in Tualatin and I’m always surprised how few bikes there are on the roads. Most that I do see are out on weekends, not commuting hours. I’m not sure what the transportation rewards of this will be.
I have to agree.
The main streets – Tualatin Road, Tualatin-Sherwood Road, Boones Ferry Road, and Borland Road, all have wide bike paths. There are numerous alternate streets with wide shoulders and less traffic (Hazelwood is one example). In fact the only road I am aware of that is not suitable for bikes is Herman Road (lack of shoulders).
In the downtown core area is the Commons, the ArtWalk, and the Tualatin Community Park – soon to be the southern terminus of the new trail to Durham and Cook Parks.
Yet – bikes are seldom to be found – there are more joggers/runners in Tualatin (which isn’t saying much).
Maybe the solution is – kind of like in the Seattle Transit discussion – there’s 1000 cheap fixes that could be done today, but instead we’re holding out for the $100M “golden parachute” answer. Let’s see…community involvement, better bike/walking paths, cross-town bus service, a vibrant downtown core, and the total cost of all of this is less than the commuter rail station to be built in Tualatin (that’s right, just the station.)
At least the station is being funded through the urban development fund and not the city’s general fund.
The Funding of commuter rail:
“# 58.65 million in federal funding
# $35.34 million from state lottery bond proceeds
# $15.56 million from TriMet and GARVEE bonds
# $7.75 million from local cities and Washington County ”
If I understand them, Garvee bonds are bonds to be paid off by future proceeds from federal funding for a project. They are a way to move the project before the feds come through with the money. But I am not a high finance guy, so maybe that isn’t the way it works. In any case, that is $15.56 million out of a $117 million dollar project.
So what if the Champlain Flyer is a rural service?
It connected a couple small communities to a town of less than 40,000. What does it or the Syracuse line have to do with the likely success of Washington County commuter rail or any other project in the Portland area? If those are the two examples, it just proves my point that you would be hard pressed to find rail projects that failed for lack of riders.